The Danger Of An Explosion

Guardian

The US risks repeating the disasters of the past by supporting Pakistan's military dictatorship

Benazir Bhutto

March 06 2006

Listening to President Bush's inaugural address in January 2005, people around the world who aspire to democracy, social change and human rights heard a remarkable statement of foreign policy from the world's sole superpower: "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation - the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

Yet, since then, the Bush doctrine, making democracy and human rights the centre piece of US foreign policy, has been selectively applied. It is waved at countries like Burma and Syria, but hardly applied to political and religious repression among US allies. And in Pakistan, democracy has been deferred by the US in the face of the military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf. The question is: will America pay the same price in Pakistan as it is now paying in other hotspots?

Historically, the US often chose to ally with authoritarian regimes out of a perceived "strategic interest". The result, though, was often myopia. America supported the shah of Iran without pressing for fundamental reforms. That gave the US cheap oil in the short term; and, in the long term, Ayatollah Khomeini,whose followers are still at loggerheads with Washington.

Similarly, in my country, the "myops" of the 80s embraced the brutal dictatorship of General Zia ul-Haq, indifferent to or ignorant of the consequences. They also failed to nurture moderation and democratic values within the Afghan coalition fighting the Soviets. This tragic miscalculation led directly to the Taliban in the 90s and, eventually, to al-Qaida on September 11 2001.

Now Washington could be making the same mistake in Pakistan. The "war" has changed, but the modus operandi remains the same. An authoritarian ruler plays the trump card of short-term cooperation in exchange for western acquiescence to his brutal junta. The consequences may be just as tragic. US support for Musharraf risks fomenting mass distrust and anger. The price is unconscionably high for the dictator's sham public support for the war on terror - especially since he allows al-Qaida and the Taliban to roam unencumbered in critical areas of the Pakistani frontier.

During my tenure as prime minister, my government partly succeeded in reforming the political madrasas by introducing a modern curriculum. The Musharraf regime, by neglecting the social and educational sector, has created conditions that make the madrasas expand and prosper. These are the breeding grounds for young people's rejection of political moderation and the direct consequence of the sustained repression of the popular democratic will.

While Pakistan's recent riots seem to revolve around the controversial Danish cartoons, Washington should not ignore an important subtext. Musharraf bans all political demonstrations except for anti-American and anti-western ones. So Pakistan's people and parties used the cartoon incident to vent a broader anger.

A nation that marginalised extremists in democratic elections from 1987 to Musharraf's military coup in 1999 is being radicalised by dictatorship. The religious parties never received more than 13% of the vote in national elections, but now their support may be growing dramatically.

What will happen to the people's deferred dream of democracy? It could explode into violence and a clerical takeover because political moderates were not allowed to function.

Benazir Bhutto is leader of the Pakistan People's party and a former prime minister of Pakistan.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited